continuing to do what he started to do yesterday which is going to the country and getting out there and talking about the values that he wants which will probably accelerate after the state of the union when he has specific policy initiatives he wants to support it will be on gun rights, immigration, the budget issues, the number of them being mashed together over the next couple of weeks. you will see the president not getting bogged down. he will go to the people. >> thank you. that does it for "washington journal."

>> the chair will recognize members from a list submitted for murdering our debate -- warning our debate. each member of the t is limiteo five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you. it is exciting to hear the president makes climate change a focus of his inaugural address. mr. obama's worst term a lot of evidence of the peril to the planet. record-breaking heat waves,

forest fires, disappearing polar ice in a court with the prediction of the climate scientists. the effects were happening faster and more severely than predicted. you do not have to believe the scientists while reasserting american global energy leadership. even balancing the budget will be easier with this initiative. congress and the administration should begin conversation about a broad-based carbon tax. this would give the right signals on energy sources and use. it could raise money to reduce the deficit, restore our infrastructure, speed and finance conservation. there are a number of other commonsense steps that would make progress on carbon pollution and energy conservation goals more

significant. the epa should stop dragging its feet permitting old coal plants to continue to spew forth toxic waste, harming the environment and the health of our citizens. it is past time the clean air act reinforced. make sure there are proper safeguards for the cracking technology. make sure this reservoir of inexpensive gas does not undercut the addition of renewables to our energy portfolio. solar, wind, geothermal. dership on these technologies for a balanced energy portfolio and ultimately to reduce our carbon footprint. at each step, we should be looking to enhance energy conservation, because the cheapest kilowatt hour is one that you don't have to generate. we should have a 10-year glide

path in support of renewable energy. the wind energy industry has already signaled its reaccept tift just giving it enough time to come to scale and then stand on its own. it's such a good idea we should do the same thing for the petroleum industry. after 100 years, the most profitable commodity on the planet is mature and will be able to survive and even thrive without additional tax incentives. finally, and most important, we should have the federal government lead by example. the department of energy's management of four large marketing agency should be the gold standard for integrating renewables into the grid, upgrading transmission capacity and leading on conservation. the g.s.a., with over 300 million square feet of federal office space, should demand

that all our facilities, every one we at least buy or build, should be of the highest energy efficiency. the federal fleet should be on the cutting edge of fuel efficiency standards. and finally, the department of defense, the largest consumer of energy in the world, needs to redouble its efforts. the pentagon is already moving in the right direction, but it's not just about saving money in the long term. it's providing operational flexibility and reducing velarde nurblet from inefficient and dangerous fossil fuels. those fuel tanker trucks in afghanistan and iraq might as well have had great big bull's eyes on them for terrorists. the military knows this, and we should give maximum support even in a time of gradually reducing pentagon budgets. this will pay dividends for defense and to the family

budget if the pentagon gets it right. it's clear that america is ready and equal to this challenge. the president has signaled his interests in leadership. the question is whether congress is equal to the challenge, ready with innovation, cooperation and leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, in a remote region of algeria at an oil and gas facility in the dark of night before the sun rose, workers from all over the world were getting ready to sit down for breakfast when suddenly gun wielding islamic radicals stormed the facility. some of the workers were killed. some were able to escape. some were taken hostage.

one of the hostages killed in this attack was a member of my congressional district, victor lovelady. victor was a native of southeast texas. he was originally from neederland, texas, a town of primarily hardworking blue-collared folks centered around the energy industry. victor had recently moved, his home not far from where i live. he was 57 years of age. when he died he was on a contract assignment for e.n.g. global, an energy company in algeria. according to his family, victor waited to take that contract until his children had finished school so he could attend their sporting events. this was not surprising for someone who is described as a dedicated family man and a fantastic co-worker. although it was hard to be so far away from his family, victor was excited to take the contract assignment so he could

ensure a secure future for his family. that's just the kind of father and husband he was. the deal for this contract was 28 days on, 28 days off. and he was just 10 days in with only 18 days left to go. he was scheduled to come home to texas the day after his daughter's birthday. his life was stolen by those who seek to destroy americans. the radicals who inflict terror on all who believe in freedom. victor is survived by a loving family, including his wife, maureen, daughter, erin, and her son, grant. over the holidays, the closed lovelady family expressed concern for the safety of victor, but he reassured them saying, it's safe, we have protection. it's hard for people to understand such unspeakable evil. i spoke with victor's brother, mike, throughout the crisis and

yesterday after we heard the terrible news. he said it best. i can associate with my brother getting in a car wreck or having cancer, but terrorism and neederland, texas, don't go together. he was described as a great family man and a fantastic co-worker, a leader who mentored countless individuals during his tenure. he was also known for his spontaneous wit. victor moved from neederland, texas, to move closer to work. mr. speaker, victor was killed not because of what he did. he was killed because of who he was. he was killed because he was an american. a radical islamic al qaeda group by the name of the significant anytories in blood claimed responsibility for this terrorist attack. those who seek to destroy us

and kill indiscriminantly. they hate us for who we are and what we stand for. diplomacy is not in their vocabulary. two other americans were also killed in this attack. their names were gordon rowan of sumpter, oregon, and fredrick of katy, texas. the algerian military retook the compound after three days. they found that 34 other hostages had been killed and dozens of terrorists. mr. speaker, our thoughts and prayers and concerns are with the lovelady, rowan and gutacio families today. secretary pennetta said that america must respond to these murders. that is correct. we should go after these killers who have malice and evil in their hearts that kill americans because they are americans. that would be justice. and justice is what we do in this country. and that's just the way it is.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, three years have past since the supreme court's dreadful citizens united decision, and we have seen the dramatic increase in the amount of corporate money flowing into our elections, drowning out the voices of ordinary american citizens eager to participate in the political process. citizens united also epitomizes the so-called corporate personhood movement in which some now say the corporations are people. the fact is corporations are not people, and the constitution was never intended to give corporations the same rights as the american people. corporations don't breathe. they don't have kids, and they don't die in wars. my constituents continue to express concern about the growing influence of corporations in our political discourse.

they're also demanding action on campaign finance reform because they are repulsed by the large amount of money in our campaigns. and quite frankly, they want elected officials to spend more time on policy, deliberating and debating on issues and less time dialing for dollars. unfortunately, the republican leadership in the house has failed to address these pressing issues during the past two years. they have been indifferent. we haven't had the opportunity to vote on any legislation to curb the influence of unlimited and sometimes secret corporate money flowing into our elections. we haven't even had the opportunity to address these issues in committee hearings or markups. recently, i joined 18 of my colleagues on a letter to chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers of the judiciary committee requesting a hearing to explore constitutional amendment proposals in response to citizens united and related cases. i hoped that we'll have an opportunity to discuss these issues in the coming weeks and months. this is, after all, the people's house.

and this is the place where we ought to discuss the concerns of the people. members of the democratic caucus have been working to reform our campaign finance system and restore the rights of the american people that were undermined by the citizens united decision. we have sponsored and co-sponsored legislation to address the growing influence of money in our democratic process. as a member of the task force on elections reform, i'm proud to join my colleagues in an effort to rein in corporate spending and address unregulated money flowing into our elections. today i'm introducing two constitutional amendments. the people's rights amendment would overturn citizens united and put a stop to the growing trend of corporations claiming first amendment rights. this amendment not only addresses corporate rights as they pertain to campaign finance but is broader in scope to clarify that corporations are not people with constitutional rights. importantly, my amendment clearly protects the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of press, free exercise

of religion, free trade agreement of association and all other such rights of the people. my second amendment advances the fundamental principle of political equality for all by empowering congress and the states the right to regulate political spending. it will allow congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that will withstand constitutional challenges. mr. speaker, we need to empower people, not corporations or big money special interests. our current system has been corrupted. it undermines the rights of ordinary citizens. it undermines our democracy. surely this is not the system our founders envisioned. the preamble to the constitution is we the people. let us hope that this congress doesn't forget that. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these important bills to reform our campaign finance laws and assure that corporate rights do not trumps people's rights. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, for five minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise and submit remarks in honor of virginia state trooper, jay, a devoted public servant, who along with trooper battle, saved a family of three from a house fire in saltville, virginia. when i first learned lerned of the bravery, news reports failed to involve his involvement. on january 2, i spoke of this incident and only mentioned trooper battle. however, both men are deserving of our recognition. . to recap in the early hours of friday, december 28, 2012, trooperer if lapd and battle were in search of a stolen car that had been involved in an earlier police chase. when they noticed off in the distance an orange shoe, they decided to investigate. when they reached the area in question, much to their surprise, troopers furland and battle saw a home engulfed in flames. they banged on the door, but

when there was no answer, they made the selfless decision to enter the home and investigate. their actions in the house awoke its three residents who had no idea that their home was burning down around them. leading them to their ultimate escape from the burning house and from the fire. because of their bravery, the family was saved, and all are in good health. their lives were saved and the lives of two of their pets were also saved. the heroic actions of troopers ferland and battle in surviss to the community are to be commended, and i am honored to be here today to pay tribute to them. please join me in thanking trooper jay ferland and trooper philip battle for all they have done for the people of southwest virginia. the virginia state police, as my experience has shown over the years, always respond in fine faction and rise to the

occasion. -- fashon and rise to the occasion. they are js two of the many law enforcement officers to note in the long and proud history of the virginia state police. mr. speaker, i wish to commend the virginia state police, troopsers ferland, trooper battle, and the good work and hero im-lism of all the officers in the -- heroism of all the officers in the virginia state police and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico mr. pierluisi for five minutes. without objection. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, tomorrow i will reintroduce two bills. the first to extend the s.s.i. program to puerto rico. the second to provide fair treatment to puerto rico on their tanf. s.s.i. provides assistance to blind, disabled, and elderly individuals with low incomes. song has chosen not to extend the program to puerto rico, which instead receives a limited

amount. the average is a side payment to the residents of the state is $500 a month, while the average payment to residents of puerto rico is just $70. the tanf program provides payments to needy families with children, the territories are not eligible for certain tanf money. moreover, federal law imposes a cap on the aggregate funding that a territory can receive on the safety net programs, including tanf. my legislation would eliminate this cap which has not been increased since 1996, and make the territories eligible for tanf grants they do not currently receive. equality under tanf would mean at least $40 million in additional funding for puerto rico each year. those who seek evidence of how puerto rico is harmed by its territory status need look no further than the treatment it receives under s.s.i. and tanf. i will fight to secure parity

under these two programs, but as long as puerto rico remains a territory, it will be an uphill battle. mr. speaker, puerto rico recently held a referendum on its political status. under the current status, the 3.7 million american citizens living in puerto rico cannot vote for the leaders who make their national laws and are treated unequally under those laws. as examples of s.s.i. and tanf will illustrate. the ballot had two questions. on the first question, voters were asked if they want puerto rico to remain a territory. of 1.8 million voters, 54% said they do not want the current status to continue. while 46% state they do. on the second question, voters were asked to express their preference among the alternatives to the current stay tufments of the 1.4 million people who chose an option, 61% voted for statehood.

33% for free association. and 5.5% for independence. the 834,000 votes for statehood on the second question exceeded the 828,000 votes for the current status on the first question. for the first time ever more people in puerto rico want to be a state than to continue as a territory. true to form defenders of the status quo have tried to distort the results of this referendum, making claims that are intellectually dishonest and divorced from the facts. these critics ignore the results of the first question and argue because close to 500,000 people left the second question blank, statehood did not prevail in the referendum. let me be clear so there is no confusion. a majority of voters in puerto rico soundless rejected the current status. among the three alternatives, statehood won a decisive victory, and statehood obtained the greater number of votes than

any other status option, including the current status. mr. speaker, at yesterday's inauguration president obama invoked the declaration of independence. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certainty unalienable rights. that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. president obama, while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing. while freedom is a gift from god, it must be secured by his people here on earth. to uphold this nation's core principles and values, the president and congress must respond to the democratic express of their fellow citizens in puerto rico who have withdrawn their consent to a political status that makes them second class citizens and have made clear that aspire to have

full democratic rights and full equality under the law. none of my stateside colleagues in congress would accept territory status for their own constituents. so they must recognize and they must that the american citizens i represent no longer accept it, either. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: mr. speaker, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen, testified before the house armed services committee that america, quote, is maintaining nearly historic fiscal deficits and national debt. indeed, i believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. if we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in

the near term, our national power will erode and the cost to our ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great, end quote. admiral mullen is right. debt caused sequestration. debt and sequestration will slash our uniformed personnel to the lowest levels since before world war ii, reduce our navy to the smallest number of operational vessels since world war i, and cut our air force to the smallest number of operational aircraft in its history. in sum, debt is putting america's national security at risk. last week on january 17 the comptroller general of the united states delivered to president obama a general accountability office report on america's financial health. i have reviewed many government audits and financial statements during my three decades in public office. i have never seen warnings as stark as those given by the g.a.o. to president obama.

some low lights of the g.a.o. report are striking and deserve emphasis. in fiscal year 2012 the federal national mortgage association and federal home loan mortgage corporation, commonly known as fannie mae and freddie mac reported about $85 billion in net valuation losses. the federal government's pension benefit guarantee corporation's liabilities exceeded its assets by about $34 billion. the postal service finished the year with a reported net loss of almost $16 billion. the federal housing administration reported that its liabilities exceeded its assets by about $15 billion. mr. speaker, america's on a path to insolvency and bankruptcy, an event that will debilitate our contry. america has incurred four consecutive unsustainable trillion dollar deficits and in the midst of a fifth consecutive trillion dollar deficit.

america's national debt exceeds $16 trillion. interest on our debt is well in excess of $200 billion per year. to put our debt service in perspective, that more than four times what the federal government spends on all highway and transportation infrastructure projects in america each year. unless washington becomes financially responsible, future debt service will escalate and even more money will be spent on debt service rather than programs that serve americans. america's comptroller general issued a stern warning to president obama, quote, the comprehensive, long-term fiscal protections show that absent policy changes the federal government continues to face an unsustainable path. over the long term, the structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead to continued growth of debt held by the public as a share of g.d.p. this means the current structure of the federal budget is unsustainable, end quote. america's current path and

federal budget is unsustainable. absent changes a federal government insolvency in bankruptcy is certain to result and cause an economic disaster unrivaled in america's history. this week, the house of representatives faces a vote to increase america's debt ceiling. pending legislation raises the debt ceiling by roughly $300 billion to $400 billion. what protection does america get in return? are there any spending cuts? no. are there policies that spur economic growth in resulting revenue increases? no. does this proposal help fix in any way the trillion dollar deficits that threaten america with financial ruin? no. mr. speaker, i can only speak for me. i will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless significant efforts are made to fix the underlying problem of deficits and accumulated debt that force debt ceiling votes and risk america's future. i will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless first

congress passes a substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment that solves the debt problem for future generations or, second, we implement sizable spanneding cuts that help get our financial affairs in order. i take this stance full well knowing the adverse economic effects of a failure to raise the debt ceiling, but also knowing, mr. speaker, that those affects pale in comparison to insolvency and bankruptcy of the america i love. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. if no other members seek recognition, pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

>> tomorrow is the long-awaited hearing for the benghazi attack in libya. that is on c-span three. later, secretary clinton testifies. you can watch that at 2:00 p.m. eastern. outcomes back at noon eastern. a conversation from this morning's "washington journal."

>> here is the place of the natural -- national prayer service. we will have coverage on c-span 3. that in our studio, we are anded by susan ferrechio richard stevenson. let us get started. where does the president stand politically? guest: we saw it yesterday in his second inaugural speech that this is a resident who feels unbound by politics. he does not face reelection.

this is a guy who has decided to go out and argue a liberal agenda. that is the starting place for everything we will see for the rest of the year. guest: i agree. what was unique about his speech is it was much more of a rallying cry than you normally hear in a second term inaugural speech. that is because the president plans to use the public getting behind him to push the agenda that would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to move. some of the things he talked about yesterday will be hard to move through congress, but you can get it part of the way there. start moving in that direction to get the public behind you. what he was talking about yesterday is trying to get folks to rally behind him about this agenda.

the reality in congress is different. obama has used this before with very spirals in congress to get his agenda to move forward. it gave you a preview of what to expect as he deals with congress. host: the gallup put out a poll in the new york post -- his approval rating is a little higher. it is the d two percent. how does he get the public together? guest: he comes out of this election feeling his oats. he has an almost every public appearance since election day sent the message, i won.

i ran on the stuff. deal with it. it is a polarized country. you won the white house, but you won the -- we won the house. ob a lot of fights here. he feels the country is tilted in his favor. that the demographic changes that are behind him and behind drinkmocratic party;'s will only grow. this is his moment. he has a year or two before he is an lame duck. he will make the most of what ever political capital he has. you get political capital by acting as if you have it. host: we are reading the papers this morning that he plans organizing for action to enlist the american people, to travel

around the country. our republicans concerned he can get majority of the people behind him? guest: they are confused about how to react. the republicans have not been able to respond in a meaningful way for their own party or for their own agenda. the president's actions to get reelected and pushed an agenda, which is unique for republicans, it caught them flat-footed. they have not figured out how to respond in a way that will help them in the polls. obama has the upper hand on it. the republicans have not come together to figure out the best way for them to move forward and get the public behind them. guest: one of the most interesting political failures of obama's first term was his inability to use the coalition he built for his first election. for purposes of rallying public

opinion behind issues like healthcare. the obama for america structure did not have the same kind of punch outside of a presidential election year that it did in 2008 and 2012. it will be interesting to see if they figure out how to unlock that forced and make it work this time. host: is that due to the agenda of the first term rather than not effectively using them? some pointed to the speech citing, liberal,. rists.r guest: those things dovetailed together. his grassroots support is more liberal than centrisrt. host: in "the new york times"

-- guest: that is true. political cycles start much earlier than they have in the past. it is always hard to predict how long a presidential impact will last. if the democrats were to pick up seats in the senate or take back the house and 2014. it could extend his ability to get more done later in his term. at the white house, if you ask him about the timetables they have, they are very acutely aware of the risks of waiting beyond this year or early next year. they have got a lot of stuff backed up already. really testing the capacity of congress to deal with these things. guest: i agree. it is possible he will have to focus on gun control or

immigration. i am not sure he can get everything he talked about past and a meaningful way. there is a divided congress. he has a limited amount of time. 18 months from now, we will talk about who will be the democratic dominy -- nominee. guest: joe biden may be accelerating that process. maybe it is already starting. host: does president obama have to choose because of the divided congress? does he have to choose immigration and gun control? guest: there are all kinds of things that congress must do in terms of spending. we have the sequestration, and expiring continuing resolution

that is funding the government, and the debt ceiling. they will consume congress because republicans and democrats do not agree on how to resolve them. he is going to leave the president tied up. you have to do with these things. immigration and gun control and gay marriage our wish list items. immigration is a big issue. that will be very hard to move something that is progressive or liberal with a divided congress. we all know that an assault weapon ban will not get to the house. it is possible they will get from checks. it may be scaled back urgent of what the president talked about yesterday. in full-scale he will not he able get an assault weapons ban through. that probably will not happen. the spending issues, he will have to deal with.

choices will be made. host: we want to get you involved. you can send us a tweet. in the immediate term tomorrow, house republicans have decided what's on the debt ceiling? guest: the debt ceiling is set to expire $6.4 trillion. we need to raise the nation's are one limits. republicans do not like that idea without having spending cuts. they have come up with a plan to extend it for a few months until may. if the democrats in the senate have not reduce a budget with spending cuts, they will set aside the pay of members of congress.

it is a tricky maneuver on their part. their goal is to get senate democrats to pass this. the senate has been unable to pass a budget for the past four years. it will be a days off between the parties over the debt limit. we will get a good look at that legislation. host: senate democrats said they will pats a budget. guest: it may not include the spending cuts republicans are looking or. host: larry, san diego, democratic caller. caller: i disagree with your host that after 18 months or two years obama will no longer be effect it. -- effective. when that the house. he may be able to do more in his last two years and his last four

years. guest: if the democrats can take back the house and picked up some seats in the senate, it gives them more latitude to go deeper into his second term with vague legislative initiatives. if that is the case, he will. there is tension there, which is that to pick up those seats, many of them are in republican- held districts. the further left you go with your agenda, the harder it can make it for candidates to run as centrists. is one of the reasons why use the leaders in congress like chuck schumer getting a little heartburn over issues like gun control. it will make it harder for some of their candidate in 2014. guest: the house is an

opportunity for democrats. it is not completely out of the possibility range for them to win the house back in 2014. redistricting will make that difficult. some of the issues that may come up -- you not forget healthcare that passed four years ago. it is part of the reason why democrats lost majority. these issues that are more progressive can put some of these members at risk. if they get the house back, and we do not have a divided congress, you will see the president moved to try to get these issues down so his legacy will be he was able to pass some of the progressive stuff he talked about. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to bring it back to people's attention that tomorrow hillary clinton will

testify on benghazi. i wanted people to to be aware of it. a lot of times there are things that come up that are not in favor of the administration that are covered up. we lost an intelligent ambassador. we should find out why. host: we've mentioned earlier that the washington times had a piece on that. guest: it is something that has been on the back burner as we have been focusing on the inauguration. it was something we were talking about one month ago. everybody will be watching tomorrow. it is a big deal to have the secretary of state, in. everyone what she has to

say. she becomes less of a focus because she is leaving. it will be important. republicans wanted to form a special committee to investigate this issue. they did not get that. we will see these hearings where we will get a picture of it from the people who were heading the operation. hillary clinton's of parents will be a big news event. guest: on national security issues, we will enter the beginnings of confirmation hearings. a broad reconsideration of our military strategy, our military spending, how we project american power as we complete a wind down of the war in afghanistan. it will be the end of a post 9/11 period in national security policy.

the policy going on from there will be unsettled. guest: look at what happened in algeria. the issue of out-not being notd weekend -- al-qaeda being as weakened. are we doing to keep them at bay? host: what will the president obama's at this he? -- what will president obama's legacy be? guest: he did wind down the war in iraq. he is in the process of winding down the war in at anniston. heavy use of drones, targeted

killings, trying to deal with threats to american national security via technology from a distance with minimal risk to american lives is one that is central to their strategy but is also opened up a host of related issues month many of which that have not been mitigated. how can the president of the united states being an american citizen to be justifiably killed? you will see some of the internal debate about this began to play out in public. there is going to be an epic that'll over the next several years over military spending. pentagon spending has grown very substantially over the last 10 years.

my guess is that the combination of fiscal pressures and a need to create military force and ability to project american power around the world in a different way will worst some rethinking of the structure of our military. do the republicans go along with that? guest: the president seems to suggest that part of his legacy will be we did not go to war with iran. we ended two wars. he managed to not get involved with iran. he hinted that that was the legacy he wants. that we would stop the violence from happening without going in.

that is one area that is a point of controversy with republicans. host: do his picks for the secretariat of defense statement that? guest: both will be confirmed. kerry is someone who the senators approve of more than secretary rice, who is controversial. senator kerry is much beloved by everyone on capitol hill. john mccain said he would endorse him. that will go through without controversy. both of these men will be confirmed easily. people think the secretary of defense choice is a signal that we will not be as aggressive as somewhat like in defending israel.

host: minimum wage. do you expect those issues to gcome up>? guest: the campaign was focused on jobs. the relative lack of direct engagement with how you create jobs during the inaugural address. this was not a set of policy proposals. there will be more about this in the state of the union. it was striking that the focus of the campaign was not terribly reflected in the address he gave yesterday. as far as labor issues, a lot of this is going on in the states. there is a national political aspect to this. i do not know what plans they have for some of these issues.

it was interesting yesterday that obama singled out issues like ensuring that women get equal pay as a key part of the principles he was trying to establish. host: republicans in the house and the senate, what are they saying on this? guest: a lot of them are not happy that the discussion was not more vocus on the economy. on the economy. his speech was supposed to be uplifting. republicans feel like for them to help steer the economy in the right direction, you have to get bending under control.

with democrats, when they want to push jobs, it involves more stimulus spending. the two sides clash. they have never been able to pass some bills because it included stimulus that democrats wanted to pass. republicans want to get the economy going in the right direction and reduced spending. reduced federal regulations. repeal parts of obamacare. this is what job creation is about. that is part of the reason why congress is not passed these measures is because the two sides have opposite views on what it would take to create new jobs in america. that will continue. caller: i am calling in about the abortion and gay -- ia am fr contraceptives and they read

killed -- date rape pills. as far as what it says in the bible, yes, it is against it. it says judge not lest you be judged. as far as the gay people go, i do not know anybody gay but i am for the rights of the gays because there are so many out there. i think judge not lest you be judged. host: what could the president do on this issue? does it have to go through congress? guest: for a guy who spent the better portion of his first term thelving on gay rights, direct language he used

yesterday, the right of people to love each other was quite striking for an inaugural address. he is all in on this issue and believes it. between his the port for gay -- between his support for gay marriage now, there will be continued to the state-based efforts. this a work will get involved. it will revolvmain a contentions issue. it today the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade? that is one of those issues that is never going to be entirely settled. you see ebbs and flows in public opinion on that. you see the general drift has been toward more restrictions on abortion rather than less. we will be debating that issue for generations to come.

>> because of the obamacare provision that covers that has worked its way through the court's. the supreme court turned down a request to block that. the caller was suggesting concern. it does not look at there will be any possibility that is taken out. hobby lobby will refuse coverage. it will remain in the spotlight. it will not go away because there is resistance to it. caller: they touched on gun control.

if they put more emphasis on the illegal sale of firearms across the border, in a criminal these fires a weapon does not have to go to a gun shop to get them. they are selling them out of the backs of vehicles and fans. youe is no limit on wherat can get your hands on. host: i am interested on what happens on a congressional level. guest: you have people talking about a comprehensive gun control bill getting through congress. that is hard because republicans run the house and they are unlike the to pick up an assault weapons ban. it has zero chance of passing

through the house. it will never become law. everyone after newtown is looking for something. there are a quarter of a billion guns out there. if we eliminate guns now, what do we do about the illegal sale? he president talked about putting more school resource officers in schools. dealing with mental health issues. in terms of what can passed as legislation, the most ambitious thing that will get through congress is a universal, background check. 48% of the people are not checked when they purchase weapons legally. at gun shows, private sales. everyone would have to have one. hopefully, we would catch some of the people who should not get their hands on guns.

the illegal sale of weapons has been a complaint of anti-gun- control folks. how will you stop all of that? that is not addressed in this legislation other than some of the little things that the president talked about doing the executive branch to make sure we prosecute illegal gun sales. eliminating it completely, there will always be the sale of illegal guns in america. i do not think a solution has come forward about that. host: from twitter -- arizona, republican line. guest: i wanted to touch on a

few issues in regards to obama's presidency. i was listening to one of the speakers. they seem educated. it is imperative that obama touches on more than one issue, rather it is gun control, abortion, etc. in regard to gun control, i live in arizona now. there is not an issue with getting a gun. i do not understand why we are making an attempt to take guns post the newtown issue. if it is a thing of mental health, why are we not addressing that? ronald reagan closed all of the mental health institutions. why aren't we looking into reestablishing them? versus taking one of our basic civil liberties away. guest: absolutely a central

aspect to this -- both parties agree in the case of these high- profile shootings that sometimes the problem is with the state of the shooter. we saw that in colorado. in and he, you look back on these instances and it turns out there were warning lines and that the mental health system, the educational system did not have any way of taking these people in and channeling them in some kind of help for themselves. how do you deal with that? how do you fund these programs? all of those are complicated issues that will probably be part of this debate. there is no easy answer to any of them. what will see are a lot of

incremental changes, efforts to fund things, pilot programs that might have some broader lessons. host: on the economy, president obama said the recession is over. we are on our way to the recovery. might republicans take issue with that part of the speech? guest: they will. the jobless numbers are going down. the business leaders have suggested the economy is recovering. the housing market is recovering. it is recovering slowly. too slowly for people to feel comfortable. republicans will focus on that. as they focus on how to reduce -- everything they said, they will keep that from the going forward, especially if they are faced with these agenda items

that are unpalatable. we'll watch these economic figures that come out every month and use that as part of their talking points. host: "national journal" broke down the issues that are coming . here are charts -- host: there is an interesting element, the degree to which stronger economic growth will help address a lot of people's problems. the best way to close the budget bleicit, the best way to be a to have more choices is by

having more economic growth. when democrats point back to what happened in the 1990's, when the deficits disappeared and we briefly went into surplus, that was largely because there was an economic boom. in retrospect, it was a boom built upon an unsustainable bubble, the first of a couple that we are still cleaning up even now, but it was a really interesting case study in how economic growth can utterly changed politics. it can under the change the way we look at the problems we have. the social security lock box, weaver got to put the money away, a totally different debate. the question of the conduct wingback is not just a short- term thing, it is not just a political thing, but it is a definitional when it comes to the question with dealing with an depopulation

guest: getting into the souls of the bill to birds is come up because republicans, fewer taxes to get the jobs, hiring more people, where democrats feel they need to dip into the treasury to pay for services. host: democratic column. caller: the funny thing is, republicans love passing a judgment on anybody else but themselves. like the way they blame obama. they totally distanced themselves from busch's eight- year buildup of the debt. bush got us into this recession, and obama had to spend to get us out, especially since the republic of done nothing to

create jobs. it is the republicans who voted against the president's jobs bill. that was a slap in the face for americans looking for work. host: do you suspect obama will initiate more spending? guest: there are a lot of constraints about that. from an economic cost perspective, there is more contraction going on. there is more money coming out of the economy at the moment, which has a lot of liberal economists worried about the impact of that on growth going forward. i do not think in this political climate there can be any big, new stimulus package. that will not happen. what obama has shown is an ability to negotiate his way to a particular programmatic or tax

changes that in his the benefit people. as people are learning now, coming out of a time in which by all taxes haven't cut, bipartisan agreement, that put a lot of money in people's pockets for a long time, even without a big stimulus program. there is some hope -- i am not sure how realistic is -- that budget negotiations could yield the beginnings of a discussion about tax reform, and there are all kinds of ways in which you could use that as an umbrella to do a lot of things that either both sides could agree on or would allow both sides to do some of the things that they want it to. host: tax reform? guest: republicans are talking about that. they wanted tax reform to

dominate the next congress. it is a question whether democrats will go along with that. charles schumer said he welcomed the idea of a budget debate because he thought it was a greater opportunity to bring in more revenue. that is not what republicans wanted to hear. the two sides have a different view on what tax reform is, and because the white house still has a democrat in office and republicans in the house feel pushed into a minority, the kind of tax reform they were talking about, are you really reforming the tax cut, broaden the base, that will be tough to accomplish, and it is not to be something that the republicans can take the reins on because they do not run the senate and they are not in the white house. host: on twitter --

this morning, taking a look at obama's second term, what is on the agenda. democratic caller from colorado. caller: yes, thank you. i wanted to tell you where i am coming from. i have been listening to every inauguration since 1929. i was six years old on the first of march 1929, and i heard herbert hoover being sworn in. i have votedat's for obama twice. but i was very disappointed right after his first term, the beginning of his first term. he appointed all those wall street guys to the treasury, and i think that was a big mistake.

get to that point, about the next round of nominees. guest: small misconception i will address, tim geithner was not a wall street guy. he has been in public service his whole career. he is often perceived that way. he had been the president of the federal bank of new york, which regulates a lot of wall street firms. having said that, there was an undeniable sense in the economic debates inside the first obama white house that concern about the markets, concern about the stability of the financial system trumped a lot of other concerns, and a lot of the policy that came out of that first year of debate about how to deal with the lessons of the financial crisis tilted more in the direction of maintaining the

stability in the banking system rather than punishing anybody or trying to root out the causes of what went on. i think even now, five, six years on to a lot of what went wrong on wall street, we're still getting to the bottom of the wedge is possible for mortgages and so forth. ofhink obama's appointment nomination of jetblue to be treasury secretary, it is hard -- jack lew to be treasury secretary, it is hard to read anything into that. he has been a pretty liberal democrat, a guy who started working on the hill forked o'neal. a lot of republicans did not like him because they feel he is too liberal. it will be interesting. obama only mention this in passing yesterday, but the tenor of his remarks certainly did not

suggest any great sympathy at this point toward wall street. the big profits ranks are now earning again. host: independent caller from north dakota. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hear all this about the gun control and drugs, and i think it is improving but the biggest part of the drugs that come into our country and across the mexican border. now you guys want to take the guns away from legal americans that own guns. what is going to stop the immigrants coming across the mexican border. when the guns are illegal, what is done to stop them from bringing in guns. we're not doing anything to stop immigration whatsoever. host: on immigration what would you like to see happen?

caller: i'm not against people, but i do not think it is right to give -- to immigrationon reform. what is the likelihood of something happening? guest: immigration reform has been something that has always divided congress. the disagreement over how to move forward, more like a regional issue. it is interesting that republicans now are willing to come forward with their own plan that will include a path to citizenship for people who are already in the country. that is a big step from a few years ago when they would not mention that kind of thing. during the primaries you heard the idea of letting people who are already here to stay here in

some capacity, not necessarily become citizens, but say here legally. host: where is that coming from? caller: marco rubio has put forward a plan that has put on the table but that decision. that is pretty big, and house republicans have their own plans. now, president obama has his own plan that we will hear about sin and that will look like a lot like the plan that democrats cannot with a few years ago, and it is less likely that democrats will embrace that. side is that eatch talking about it suggests to me that they can come together in the next congress, and one of the big reasons is the political ones. republicans did not do very well

in this election and they felt like if they were able to do better in this group they would have a better chance of winning. they feel like that they cannot completely abandon hispanics. a huge issue. host: when you look at the lineup of the senate, you have marked rubio putting up legislation, and then jeff flake from arizona, and more democrats as well. guest: the politics are changing fundamentally and quickly. republicans work really shaken up by the demographics of the most recent election results. the obama team made it clear that there is a a very large and very fast growing electoral constituency out there. the democrats have an opportunity to lock up in the

same way that they have african- american votes, and that leaves republicans in a very difficult decision, not just in border states and places where you associate immigration issue with politics, but really all across the country. and they know they have to change, and the role of presidential politics is going to be key in this. marco rubio, a very likely 2016 candidate, the possibility of jeb bush coming in in order to have some leverage on issues like this, really going to be very key in pushing the party along. you see that reflected in some of the remarks like from john mccain about how to do something that would create some path to illegal aliens who are now in this country remaining here legally.

host: ogden, utah, republican column. caller: good morning, c-span. a couple comments. the green and a sheet stuff, how many more billions of taxpayers' money will be pumped into these companies and watch them go belly up before we realized it is a rat hole and we need to quit shoving money down a rathole? on climate change, anybody -- anytime somebody tells me that the solution to a problem is to tax people and pick their pockets under the color of law to solve the problem, then you have to have one hand on your wallet and the other hand on your second amendment because they are trying to rob you. guest: one of the many surprising things that came out of this speech yesterday was obama's embrace of climate change as an issue that he will

pursue in this term. a lot of people were taken aback by the centrality of his message is it today. it was not an issue that came up in the presidential campaign. it was something that since the election he has been hedging about. they got burned on this is she trying to pass comprehensive the legislation during the first term, and yet he came out, talked more about this, more specifically about this than any other issue. as the caller suggested, the politics of this are difficult. the policy in many cases is unproven. it is wrapped up with solyndra and the question of whether government subsidies and eight are going down a rat hole. when it comes to trying to promote clean energy industries, obama alluded to this briefly yesterday when he said the path of creating a clean energy industry will be difficult.

this is something that obama clearly feels very strongly about. it will be tough to sequence this with everything else they have on this agenda. it is likely in is something that they will deal with on a regular ferry basis, but that does not mean it will not come up. it will, and a couple of different ways. it will come up around the appointment of a new epa director, the agency that will be in the middle of this. it will come up to run the question of whether they go ahead with the keystone pipeline, and should obama take a second action, regulatory action, to clamp down on emissions from power plants, there is likely to be a gigantic fight in the senate over rescinding those regulations. this is going to be a very big, contentious, ideological, economic issue of the next few years. what is interesting -- guest:

what is interesting is he is talking about executive actions, because congress will not pass anything on climate change. will not get through the house and be difficult to get through this and that to some degree, getting some of the members from the oil states in the senate. this will be an executive action situation with climate change, but given what the president said yesterday, we can expect him to be moving aggressively outside the bounds of congress, and it will be controversial, and it could result in lawsuits and all kinds of economic problems. host: a question on twitter -- guest: yesterday in his speech he was -- when he ran as somebody in 2008, someone who

was going to change america, people elected him expecting this transcript of president. i do not think he was transformative in the first four years, but he was reelected, so now he is saying this is what i said i was doing -- what i was gone to do in 2008, and now i want to do those things. in certain sense, he has been transformative in the way he has gotten his public behind him, the campaign-style agenda, and he will travel the country now trying to sell these issues. in it isme is different and making it harder for the opposition to resist. whenever you have the country plus politics shift in that direction, it is transformative. host: his legacy when a comes to the interaction with congress.

president obama, speaker boehner? guest: mitch mcconnell, joe biden. michelle obama is rolling her eyes or making a fence at the inaugural luncheon yesterday when obama and boehner talked behind her. lost betweenlove the two. now at this point you have but the president and boehner committing not to talk to each other about the next big spending fight. not a good sign. host: what will second obama term mean for the court? guest: a lot of big issues, and i suppose there is the possibility of another supreme court appointment, which is always a moment to read-tod

litigate social issues. we will look at potentially historic rulings on affirmative action, economic issues, gay marriage, and if he goes ahead on climate change, i do not know if it will get the court, but that will be with just in extreme. i think this -- despite the fact that the president and chief justice managed twice to get through the oath of office without any mistakes of the last couple of days, you are still going to see a huge gulf between the conservative majority of the supreme court and this white house, particularly under the principles that obama enunciated yesterday.

host: oregon, democratic color. caller: there is no way there is going to stop the gun control. why don't they do like johnson did. they built fences around every wrecking yard and scrap yard and junkyard in america on the highways. they build all these fences around every school where nobody can see in, and if they put somebody there at the gates like they did in the airports and things like that. host: the nra bought it up. guest: they were highly criticized for that press conference a few weeks ago. again, a difference in opinion on how we should go about making

schools safer. from the democratic perspective, the fewer guns, the less likely that there will be violent and dangers in our schools. from the gun control opponents, people who do not want to see restrictions, they should be about keeping the schools safer from a person who is mentally unbalanced, marching in with their weapons. and there is controversy about that. you heard obama speak about this a couple weeks ago when he laid out his initiative, and he talked about providing resources officers to school and access occurred 84 schools that wanted it. he did not want to force it. you do not want to turn a school fortress.rc the nra folks are saying you want to make it much harder for

folks to come in. you do not know if there is thought to be somebody there who will fire back at you. people coming at different directions, and you hear what the caller is saying right now, which is we should makes schools more fortress like. host: because of the fiscal deadlines we face? guest: the monetary and financial issues will consider progress. the state of the union is coming up. we will hear the president talk about this again. dianne feinstein will introduce her legislation. that is gonna happen this month in the coming days. the question is when does senator reid of a bill to the floor and what? he has said he will move budget legislation to before, but he

has not said what will be in that legislation. when will he do it? timing is everything here, but it will happen in the coming term. host: and climate change, the timing of that. on twitter -- guest: implicit is the question of whether there will be any consideration given to a carbon tax. the white house has gotten this question in the past. they have suggested that is not something they are considering. it is conceivable that obama has rethought that, and it might surprise everybody by putting forward something that would both try to raise revenues, thereby addressing the deficit issue, but also try to curb emissions of gases that cause global warming by making it more

expensive. as a practical matter, that is a nonstarter. it is one of those policy debates that advocates love. it seems simple, very efficient, but politically it is probably a nonstarter. in terms of the timing, moving ahead on the regulatory front is a very complicated undertaking. it requires a lot of work to prepare for. they know there will be political fights around this. my guess is that will be put off until later this year. host: here for 30 more minutes as we discussed the second term

of president obama. thank you very much for your patience. caller: as far as the deficit goes, if they do not do something, our children are not gonna have a feature, because eventually everybody will have to pay taxes to solve this problem if they did not stop spending. also, immigration, i am 100% do something, make a comprehensive. i'm second-generation americans. my grandmother came to this country. if you do it the way they want, just the amnesty think, your condoning ricky america law. in that case, we are currently north korea, venezuela, and where do my children go to find that better life, because america is on to beat venezuela. what do you say about that? guest: 2 questions.

one being a long-term impact of the accumulated national debt, and it is true if nothing is done, the debt grows to the point where a gigantic portion of what we spend every year is going to be just paying off the interest of what we have borrowed in the past. it would be handed down the generations and generations to come in a way that would constrain their options to make all kinds of policy choices. there are a number of big issues that have to be at rest there. one is what we are referring to as spending. most people tend to think of that as discretionary spending that congress appropriates each year. that is being squeezed and squeezed. republicans, both some of about a -- but symbolically and in a real way, when to keep going

down the road. that is not where the real dollars are. obama said recently that we do not have a spending problem, we have a health care problem, and that is mathematically true. the big, big burdens that are going to be put on government spending over the long run come from rising health-care costs and the aging of the population, both of which are going to drive the costs of sustaining the medicare program to levels that it is hard to see how we can pay for. we have to deal with that. the other part of this is in a mathematical term, thinking about the denominator here. how much economic growth is there to support all of that spending we want to do. and the more growth there is, more tax revenue, the more affordable it comes to sustain those programs, and it gives us more leeway to decide do we need

to raise the age of medicare eligibility, do we need to begin means testing medicare in a serious weight so wealthier people have to pay more? do we need to impose lower cost- of-living increases on social security benefits by changing the inflation index that is used to? all of those are really big issues. , all of those had huge long- term consequences for addressing the question that the caller asked. host: new jersey, republican. caller: good morning. happy new year. we have covered so many things this morning. i enjoy the parade. i enjoyed this discussion. ese problemsse thi with either pessimism or optimism. yesterday.everything eric i was so proud of those people

marching down the street. i am proud of the diversity of this country. at st. john's, i was proud that our leaders went to church, and "j-o-b-s this big signen, s." bibby helpful if the present -- it would be helpful if the president would stop his campaign against high-paying jobs. what i thought was interesting, the episcopalian church, it was the st. john's episcopalian church, the guy who started that church was king henry viii, the people we fought against in the revolutionary war, they were against the king of england. it is ironic we started out

with the church started by king henry viii, but nevertheless, i am incredibly of domestic. host: we will leave it there and have them respond. guest: that is where the next economic boom lies in america. hydraulic fracturing, huge reserves of natural gas and oil have been discovered in america. the keystone pipeline -- all these things can lead to real economic recovery and prosperity in america, and they feel president obama is not getting behind this surplus we have. i think you heard the caller talked about that when he mentioned what happened when there was a moratorium on drilling. you might remember a few years ago, the moratorium was

contested in court, and the administration lost that. the question about how much obama will get behind that. he did not mention it yesterday in his speech. he talked about climate change and suggested going in the opposite direction. the next four years may be a tough one for energy producers. guest: shall pass has become so plentiful and prices of it -- natural gas has become so plentiful and prices of it has come down so much it is changing the economics of the industry, which plays into the question of climate change policy. to the degree that natural gas which is cleaner than cold begins to replace coal as a primary fuel for power plants, that reduces carbon emissions. all of these things are sort of working together. the administration keeps pointing out that will and gas production is higher than it has

ever been, and that is true as the economy comes back. there is an inherent tension between some of this energy policy and job policy. that is one of the reasons why obama takes every opportunity he can to point out this clean energy proposal, because don't wait politically that the white house sees an opportunity to thread that needle between climate change and jobs is to promote the idea that the energy sources of the future are themselves going to create good, high-paying jobs that will allow us to tap into a burgeoning global market and beat out countries like china that are already really establishing themselves in things like solar power. host: natural gas production will continue to rise and crude oil imports will fall over the next decade. co2 emissions are not expected

to rise to pre-recession levels. energy use is expected to be less in the united states. and real will prices are expected to rise $2 per barrel annually. some members from "national journal." caller: i would like to say president us message -- because he reached out to all parts of government to get our nation on track. the republicans, they forget that this country was built and compromises. i thought their views of how government operates is very myopic. the idea that if you do not adapt to the changing times of the nation, they will find

themselves in the annals of history. guest: republicans are questioning their own relevancy. they're a tough spot now because the president has the public and he had it yesterday. it was a soaring speech, inspirational speech that actually -- having talked to republicans after the inaugural luncheon yesterday, many of them said they were disappointed because they felt the president would do more to reach out to their party yesterday in terms of the things that the two sides will have to work on together in the coming weeks. not the least of which being be expiring debt ceiling and spending issues. he did not talk about that. he did not reach out, and they were disappointed in that yesterday. both sides feel the other is not doing enough to reach out. host: on twitter --

guest: it is interesting, because when the election ended, the speaker offered what he considered an olive branch on the negotiations in saying they would put some tax revenue on the table. it cannot go their way. they were backing down. at this point the speaker needs to be careful about his own leadership, but you will see last compromise on his part because the conference of republicans are expecting him to stand up more to the president on issues important to that. they will not go for a tax increase. they will aim for spending cuts that they felt they did not get in the summer. in that sense, we are calling to see the two sides butting heads more in the coming weeks. guest: probably most striking change in tone between the address that president obama

delivered esther date and the one he delivered four years ago was the absence of the kind of language that he opened his first address with, about putting aside petty grievances and stale dog was admitted on to a new kind of politics. that was replaced yesterday by a statement in which he said we do not have to settle these centuries-old arguments about the role of government. we need to act, we need to get things done. i think that that was as clear a sign to the republicans that he is intending to fight these issues, not necessarily to compromise in the end, but not to start from the idea that he is gone to have to move to the middle in order to get anything done. that is going to be different. host: this next phone call is from cora, colorado. caller: hi. i would like to talk about the

spending cuts that the republicans are wanting to do to medicare, and also include medicaid. i believe they are creating the opposite, because reducing these only increases the cost of health care that now stands at eight per team -- 18% of gdp. to reduce these by raising the eligibility age for medicare will move people to the more expensive insurance. this would affect our ability to -- as far as economics, and what i would like to see is the all consuming cost of our most expensive hospitals, drugs, that is a hard thing to do, to

reduce those, and that will automatically reduce medicare and medicaid, and i would like to see republicans include the cost-to-gdp in their discussions. guest: i think the last election change that, because medicare reform became a big part of the discussion. it's a part of the discussion. both sides agree that medicare has to change in order to be sustainable, and if it stops becoming about gdp, i think medicare is the one that they are going to work on. we will see means testing. also perhaps and then surely a change it the eligibility age.

they have done this and other country now where you have to be older to qualify. the idea of lowering the cost is one that somebody talks about. you have medicare as a source of that where hospitals are overcharging and people are getting unnecessary treatments. it has to be a comprehensive reform. the caller talked about lowering comprehensive. it is or in big picture but i think congress will be looking at that. i don't know if it will be this congress but has already started as part of the conversation and people are comfortable talking about this which is the first step. they are at least willing to talk about it. from that point on, we will

start to see more plants come forward, more ideas and eventual legislation. i don't know when it will be but it will happen. host: our focus is on president obama's second term, the one under 13 congress, the inaugural festivities concern -- continue today. we are covering the national prayer service at the national cathedral here in washington and we have a shot outside the cathedral. inside, our live coverage on c- span 3, the president and vice president will be attending that interfaith prayer service. there will be representation from religious leaders from several christian denominations, islam, judaism, etc at this service today and you will see plenty of dignitaries making their way into that prayer service and coverage is on c-span 3 today. middlebury, conn., republican, good morning. caller: i am a vietnam veteran and was a member of the police

department. my concern is the safety is built into the manufacturers of this country on firearms that are being sold. let me give you an example -- i am really upset -- i just recently purchased a 380 for my daughter and it was manufactured in argentina. that weapon has a built-in safety factor where you need a key to actually get access to the use of that firearm. if the firearm is left unattended anywhere, no one can be added and if you try to break it open to get into it, you cannot use it. why cannot the manufactures endicott -- in this country do the same thing as they do in brazil? guest: that technology is available like cheese and grips that sense your own identity.

there are all kinds of ways of restricting access to particular guns. my guess is this will be part of the conversation on the above hill. it could yield something. there are so many guns already in circulation in this country that the idea of making a huge dent on gun safety is going to be a real uphill battle. host: from twitter -- guest: the fear of the background checks, more requirements to own a weapon, people feel it as a second amendment right. they feel the background check

is another way of getting in the way of a purchase. gun owners of america are a very strong lobbying group who are worried about an incremental infringement on the second amendment, not necessarily -- it is hard to argue against making sure that the guns are not in the hands of criminals. the argument is that if you want to sell antique guns to your neighbor, how are you going to perform that background check? what kind of cost is that put on folks? what kind of inconvenience? that is the argument behind it. i don't think the argument is that we don't want to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people but i think it is a second amendment issue. guest: the second issue is the

notion of creating some kind of national database. guest: that database may be away for the government to confiscate their weapons is how they see it. host: from twitter -- brentwood, tenn., independent caller. caller: i'm a frustrated into abandoned. -- i'm a frustrated independent. i am frustrated by president bush and president obama. i cannot believe the american people will not wake up and do what is right about this national debt for our children. it is eating away at our freedom. we are mortgaging their freedom away, basically. once they default on it, we will never get it back. host: that as an echo of "the

washington post" editorial. guest: between dealing with the dead, dealing with climate change, dealing with health care costs, i think for all the sense of paralysis and partisan divide in washington, we are starting to have more serious conversations about these long term, trans-generational issues. part of it is simply that we have reached a point where not acting starts to become more expensive than acting. the economic costs of inaction really start to mount up and you -- to pinpoint where it becomes hard to catch up and get where you want to go. that a fax carbon emissions and the debts. i don't want to sound naive or

suggest that we will break through on these things but i sense that there has been some change in the tone - that the debate over the bulls since in plan inbowles-simpson plan really did engage washington and voters heard about this issue. i think obama is trying to do the same thing now with climate change. a lot of the issues that we are talking about all have very complicated long term ramifications that if are not front and center, are at least part of the political culture now in a way that they were not. host: fla., republican -- caller: thank you for this discussion. i want to discuss the mental health of the country itself. it reflects and all the issues

we are dealing with. please keep an open mind on this -- for 46 years, all of my decisions were made in fear and insecurity and worrying about what other people thought about me. i was on a self destruction course until i realized that cell destruction is a misnomer because i left behind destruction for others around may. i fill the country has been on this course and 9/11. we have been in crisis mode. every american has been in fear and insecurity and especially the politicians. it is even worse with politicians because instead of doing was right for the country, they are more worried about getting reelected. guest: i think we have past elections that have led to the

level of discord in congress. there were swing elections for one year we are electing lots of folks who are liberal and two years later, others who are conservative. i think it creates a situation in congress that is more combustible. you see far fewer deals, far fewer efforts to get together and do anything together. it is very rare now for both parties to act in unison. 20 years ago, it was much more common. even further back, you think of tip o'neill and ronald reagan getting together and selling big issues but that does not happen anymore. i think that is in part due to some of the elections we have had where people are really swinging back and forth and we are getting a divided congress. it creates a crazy atmosphere were nothing gets done in

congress and both sides are fighting all the time and i think the public is absolutely fed up. i covered campaigns myself and talk to voters again and again and i hear that people are sick and tired of it. it is leading to these elections where we are getting lots of new people in every few years including this frantic turnover in congress. it is adding to the atmosphere that the caller was just describing. what is the answer? who knows? it will depend on how these elections go over the coming years. guest: there's an interesting phenomenon here which is, that to a certain degree, the loudest voices, the most passionate voices in political and social debates now have retreated into these kind of in similar camps and where they have their own media that an forces their points of view. they all sight of their own statistics.

social media has met or people together in self-reinforcing cycles and they don't speak to one another the. those people to feel they are in the middle working for solutions here are watching this artillery fly back and forth over their head in growing frustration. i think we have yet to find a way in our politics to break down those silos that increasingly characterized the right and the left and bring those people together. if you believe that the solutions are bilateral. part of this debate is that there are passionate people who think sincerely that compromise is the wrong way to deal with these things. they think need to wait for the moment when you have all the power and then jam through the policies you think are most

important for the nation rather than compromising along the way. guest: there are fewer and fewer members of congress who are described as moderate. they are losing our they are retiring and they are not being replaced by other moderates. they are a shrinking group in the used to be 60 + but that number has shrunk way down. not only are they watching the artillery, they are being completely ignored. because't have power they don't have numbers on that is how you move things in congress. host: youngstown, ohio, go ahead. are you with us? let's move on to tony in independent -- two kentucky, an independent scholar. caller: thanks for allowing me on the show.

you have been talking about a lot of different subject this morning. the one i would like to talk about is the -- the global warming issue and taxing american taxpayers which seems like a scam to make. -- to me. if you look at all the facts or what ever, there is no tax to emissions are causing -- that are causing harm to our environment. it looks like that is another way for the government to tax us to pay for the trillions of dollars they spent frivolously. guest: the science on this is pretty clear -- the question of how you dress -- address thus is obviously much

less clear. but caller is alluding to the idea of there being some kind of carbon tax, some kind of way of making it less economically attractive to burn fossil fuels thereby increasing the cost which is then passed on to taxpayers in directly with regulatory action. to do that can have the same the fact. -- effect. there's no question there is an economic cost to addressing this. some of them are direct to consumers and some are little bit longer term and harder to see. it will impose strict regulatory regimes on burning carbon fuels, do we become less globally competitive with countries like china and india that are moving much lower if at all to address this? can -- they can manufacture things cheaply than we can as a result. it ultimately comes down to a

value system of -- do we want to sustain our competitiveness for now or do we want to try to head off a problem that is accumulating gradually and will be a much bigger problem potentially down the road host: we are waiting for the house to come in, what is happening in washington this week? guest: the president may have talked about immigration reform yesterday but we would be talking about the debt limit this week in congress. the house will introduce their bill to extend the debt limit until may 19 and will debate it and try to pass and then it will dominate the news cycle on the house side. it is a big deal because it sets a political confrontation with the senate democrats. they have not produced a budget in four years. it will be an interesting

situation where member pay will be set aside. you cannot make their pay subject to anything but apparently they can set the pay aside if they do not pass a budget. host: what can we expect from the white house this week? guest: what you will probably see this weekend in coming weeks as president obama continuing to do what he started to do yesterday which is going to the country and getting out there and talking about the values that he wants which will probably accelerate after the state of the union when he has specific policy initiatives he wants to support it will be on gun rights, immigration, the budget issues, the number of them being mashed together over the next couple of weeks. i think you will see the president not getting bogged down in early negotiations with

the hill. trying to go over the head of lawmakers and go directly to the people. host: we will leave it there. we appreciate the conversation this morning. >> u.s. house about ready to gavel in four legislative where. one bill will regard pandemic prepared as. tomorrow, an increase in the debt limit that will allow borrowing until may 19. the rules committee will meet today. look for live coverage on that at c-span.org. the house deviling and momentarily, just minutes away, here on c-span. >> and the very start to organize militaries have always been a lot of their time fighting conventional public air regular or fair. those terms do not make a heck

of a lot of sense. that is one of the big takeaways i have from doing six years of research. the way we think about this subject is all messed up. we think that somehow conventional warfare is the norm, but the way you modify it is how these conventional armies slugging it out in the open. the reality is those have always been the exceptions. think about the more moderate marat. what was the last conventional war that we saw? says a hard question that answer, because it was the russian invasion of georgia in 2008. it did not last long, but all of the world there are people who are dying in war. all these people are victims, they are being ravaged by unconventional warfare. >> this weekend, max boot on the history of guerrilla warfare, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

c-span, created by merkel's cable companies in 1979, brought to you by a public service by your television provider. here on c-span, the u.s. house will cavil in momentarily. they will take up a bill dealing with pandemic prepared ness. tomorrow, they will take up an increase in the debt limit. that bill will be for the rules committee at 2:00 p.m. eastern at c-span.org. at the white house, a briefing is under way. a reporter tweeds that jay carney says the white house welcomes the house republican plan to suspend the debt limit through may 18. the briefing is under way. you can follow can at c- span.org. the c-span -- the senate is in today, and they will break at

12:30 eastern for their weekly party caucuses. the majority leader harry reid will present colleagues with options for reforming the senate blockbuster rules in the meetings today. another reporter says the majority leader signals he will push ahead with a supplemental spending package on hurricane sandy, the $50.5 billion supplemental package from last fall. is one of the holdovers from the 112th congress. harry reid will need unanimous consent from a publicans. watch the senate on c-span2. on c-span3, the inaugural prayer service. we take you live now to the house floor on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. thank you fwod for giving us another -- god for giving us another day. the people's house gathers today after a day of celebrating the greatness of our american experiment of self-government, and as the administration gathers for a prayer even now at the national cathedral, we gather here.

-- here to ask your blessing. the difficult work of governing now resumes. bless the members of this assembly with wisdom, patience, and good will as they tackle the ongoing issues challenging our nation. we thank you again for the inspiration of our nation's founders and the legacy they left us with. may the members of this assembly and all americans be worthy of that legacy. may all that is done this day be done for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to

clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on the approval of the -- is on the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. the gentleman from texas. >> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the gounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postpone. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from florida, ms. fran tell. ms. fran tell: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america -- ms. frankle: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the royce for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. -- the speaker: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, on september 12, 1962, at rice university, president john kennedy committed america to put a mann the -- on the moon by the end of the decade. unfortunately, tragedy struck america at 6:31 p.m. on january 27, 1967. mr. olson: in the ground test of the apollo crew module, a fire broke out. within minutes, three brave spice pioneers had lost their lives. we lost roger chaffee, training for his first mission into space. we lost gus grissom, the second american in space, behind alan shepard. and we lost ed white, the first

american to space walk and the man my elementary school in houston was named after. two and a half years after the apollo fire, neil armstrong put his left foot on the moon. it was a giant leap for man kind, one that would not have happened without the sacrifice of the apollo i crew. may the world always remember these heroes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. slaughter: i am pleased to rise today to recognize the landmark anniversary of the roe v. wade decision by the supreme court. s the firewall that protects women's health and moved

women's health forward. on this 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, we confirm the constitutionally protected right of every woman to safe and legal health care. women are nurturers and when life places a woman in the most difficult of circumstance the choices she needs to make should be free from government interference. over the years i have been proud to stand with many of my colleagues as we have beaten back repeated attempts to chip away at women's rights set forth in roe v. wade. over the last two years, we've seen the most extreme and repeated attempts to take a -- away a woman's right to health care. in the most recent congress we found ourselves defending a woman's right to choose and -- a woman's right to contraception. we insisted politicians not place themselves in the operating room to not judge the

motives of a woman if they thought her decision may have been based on the gender or race of the fetus. we stand on the shoulders of giants, women who went before us with this an we take up the cudge el to keep it safe and legal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to reflect on 40 years since the ruling of the united states supreme court in roe v. wade. our president in his inaugural address yesterday recognized the fact that this nation has long unt that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among them is the right to life and the recognition that it's rooted in that every life is precious and deserving of dignity. today i took the first of what will be many steps in my con

fregsal service to protect life by co-sponsoring h.r. 17, the -- to ensure that family planning grants are used for their intended purposes and not by organizations like planned parenthood to provide abortions. mr. speaker, our nation, we must do better. our children deserve better. my hope is that with hard work, persuasion and prayer, we will once again become a nation that recognized the dignity of every human being and recognized again our god-given inalienable right to life. i yield backle the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade and the freedom

of reproductive choice this historic decision provides for all women in america. this is a very personal and private choice. when i gave birth to my son ben, it was the most precious moment in my life. his life has brought me great joys and great responsibilities. the decision to bring ben into this world was made by my -- by his father and myself. it was our choice. we didn't call the governor. we didn't call the congress. it was our choice. so today i proudly honor the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade an thank those who have fought so bravely to ensure that women have the right to make those life-changing personal decisions that affect them and their families and as we celebrate, we must be mindful that there is more work to be done to protect reproductive choice for our daughters and our granddaughters. thank you and i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> my wife paula and i live about 500 yards from olympia high school and their baseball field. every spring we watch the team play. for the past years it's been coached by todd mcdougall. he's taught his entire career at olympia high school. he's one of those, and we all know them, great teachers. as is his wife, julie, a middle school science teacher. mr. heck: so you can imagine the feelings when he was diagnosed with glioblastoma. he could use our prayers, as could julie, as could their daughter and twin-year-old

sons. i hope you find out more thabt remarkable man at friends of todd mcdougall on facebook. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to to salute the work done by california justice center. i was an alameda county prosecutor and it was during my tenure that he justice center was founded by my former boss. prior to its existence, people in my area subjected to domestic violence, human trafficking or sexual assault had to navigate a complicated bureaucracy and go to many places to get much-needed services. the qussties center changed that. it operates as a one-place

location for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and offers services such as job training and counseling. those suffering at the hands of abusers have a place to rest, recover and restore their lives. i saw the horrible damage these crimes cause and i'm grateful the traumatized victims of the east bay have the justice center to which they can turn. in a few day it's holding its sixth annual fundraise gag la. i wish everyone good luck with the event and continued success in helping victims of the east bay. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the jol from -- the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur texas to address the house for onemen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: no theme of president obama was making -- more important than making

america energy independent again. only fools would fail to pay attention to the necessity of change to meet the needs of a new era. our dependence on importing foreign oil cost over $321 billion, racking up a $4 1 billion trade deficit in petroleum and alone. with that lost income comes lost jobs by the hundreds of thousands so many people could be emploid here at home. on climate change the president recognized the reality of expensive weather incidents like hurricanes sandy or katrina odeclining lake or river levels like the mississippi or the two-foot drop in lake erie over the last year. we must anticipate and adapt our lives where possible. as the 113th congress begins, our primary aim will be to welcome the challenges of change not cling to the past. working together, as the president challenged, america

can meet the test of a new day. my brother steve, the inventor, innately grasps this challenge. so must we. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i also rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the supreme court roe v. wade decision this landmark decision granted american women the right to make their own personal health decisions. in consultation with her family and her faith and without government intrusion. mrs. capps: however, this right has been under steady attack in recent years with a clore goal, to make it so difficult to obtain a safe and legal abortion that it's become de facto illegal. but i'm among those who remember what what it was like when women were pushed into the shadows to get care and we cannot go back to that

dangerous time. the truth is, none of us can walk in the shoes of each woman, facing an unwanted pregnancy. so let's use this anniversary to renew our commitment to ensuring that every woman in america can make her own decisions and walk her own path. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> in 1971, the united states supreme court heard arguments in row vs. wade. 13 months later 40rk years ago today, the supreme court issued its decision on the case, a case that every law student reads, a case that's defined the woman's right to control her body and her future and the definitive decision on a woman's right to choose. this is delivered by justice

blackman for the court. i reread that decision on this day and was struck by the statement that the task for the court is to resolve the issue by constitutional management, free of emotional and predlix. justice mac month went on to quote -- blackmon went on to quote justice holmes and said the constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views and -- an accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel, even shock, should not conclude our judgment upon the question of whether statutes embodying them conflict with the constitution of the united states. interestingly it was chief justice roberts who also looked to justice holmes in deciding obamacare. . boat looking to the constitution, 40 years later, good law. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek

recognition? miss bone quameachy: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: 40 years ago today roe vs. wade gave women the right to make their own decisions about reproductive had been health care. without it women's lives would be very different. history shows us that when abortion is illegal, it does not go away, it becomes dangerous. and that's why it's important to continue to make sure that abortion is legal, rare, regulated, and safe. before roe, more than a million women each year took great risk to access health care they needed. they faced unlicensed and ill-equipped physicians, unsanitary conditions, illness, and death. this is why the supreme court ruling was so important 40 years ago. it ensured safe, legal abortions for these women. roe vs. wade ensures the basic right of privacy, the freedom to control one's body and one's future. it can be easy to feel

complacent today, but the threats against reproductive health care rights are increasing. there is still work to be done. today 40 years later we must continue to fight so that women's reproductive health care rights are not rolled back. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, 40 years ago today the supreme court affirmed the dignity and independence of each american woman. mr. holt: the result of the decision was an understanding that our constitution guaranteed decisions about a woman's own body should be left up to that woman in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her religion, not the federal government. there's now a generation of women who do not remember the time before roe vs. wade. a time when men assumed they could say what women could and could not do about their

personal private health care and reproduction. we still have a lot of work to do. unfortunately, over the past 40 years there have been numerous legislative attempts to deny this right to women and treat women who exercise control over their own bodies as criminals. we have to make sure that we defend also title 10, maternal and child health care programs, public access to reproductive health care, and that we re-authorize the violence against women act. but we must remember the time before roe vs. wade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? if the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for one minute. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday in his inaugural address our president reminded

us of the founding principle of our nation, that all americans are created equal. for the women of this great country, there can be no greater means of equality than the right to reproductive choice. today on the 40th anniversary of roe vs. wade, i come to the floor to reflect on that landmark decision that allowed american women the freedom to make health care decisions on their own in consultation with their family and doctors. i don't know the story of every woman who has had to make a difficult decision, but i can tell you this, each one is unique. each woman's story is her own. as a politician i'm not going to tell women when to get checkups or when to get mammograms, and no politician now or ever should tell a woman how to panel her pregnansism just this morning the "wall street journal" issued a poll that showed americans agree with this. seven in 10 americans believe roe vs. wade should stand. and i think everybody who tries

to reverse this fundamental right should keep that in mind. thanks to everybody who fights every day for the rights of women. today is the day to be grateful and to celebrate and commit to hard work in the future. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as we begin the 113th congress, it is time that this congress does what hardworking families, small businesses across our country does every day. balance our budget. and actually work within the budget. we have families right now that are struggling. the impacts of this congress and

its inability to be able to have its fiscal house in order could not be overstated when it comes to hurting those families and small businesses. mr. tipton: we are going to be putting forward legislation to make sure that that debt ceiling will be increased for a temporary period of time, but with the requirement that this house and our counterparts in the united states senate actually pass a budget for the american people. if we can't do that, then we as members of congress don't deserve to be paid. no budget, no way. this is common sense. stand up for the american people to make sure that we are getting this fiscal house in order and looking out for our children and for our grandchildren. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute.

mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, today we mark the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, the landmark decision which enshrined a realm of personal privacy which is deeply connected to the personal freedoms that we hold dear in this country. as one justice put it, it's the simple right to be left alone. the right to choose is meaningless without access to choose. yet this congress, the republican-led congress, has chipped away at access voting 10 times to limit access in the last congress to a woman's basic right. last year there were 43 states -- 43 laws that were passed in 19 states that would restrict access to a woman's right to choose.

this past election women made it loud and clear that the right to choose is one that they believe in and that is a basic right that the majority of americans hold dear and will uphold with their votes in every election. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, yesterday was a magnificent day. coming together the second inauguration of president barack obama, and the honoring of dr. martin luther king. in his speech president obama said something potent and powerful, and that is that freedom is a gift from god, but it is one that is not self-executing. i know that a gentleman that i know very well, dr. reverend samuel smith of the mount hall baptist church knows about fighting for freedom.

today i rise to again affirm roe v. wade, that speaks about individual freedom. and to indicate that even as we discuss budget talk and the debt ceiling we must recognize the freedom of the vulnerable to be safe and secure, to be without -- to be having the support to be able to have food and clothing and a home. that is freedom as well, my friends. so we debate the questions of the debt ceiling and whether we have a budget. let us be reminded that freedom is a gift of god and that it should not be denied to those who are most vulnerable, those who are the speak, those who cannot stand for themselves answer the president made it very clear that freedom is not to the powerful, it is for all of us. we all are created equal with certain unalienable rights of life and liberty in the pursuit of happiness. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute.

mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. today marks the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, and ultimately decisions about whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy, or raise a child must be left to a woman, her family, and her faith with the counsel of her doctor or health care provider roe v. wade prevents politicians from interfering with a woman's personal decision. were roe ever to be overturned it could have ripple effects. our laws and traditions afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating among other things to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and intimacy. the right to privacy strengthened by roe supports each of these areas. overturning roe could potentially erode the ability of individuals to make highly personal decisions free from intrusive government regulations and harm the overall right to privacy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. very historical moment here in washington, d.c. yesterday not only the swearing-in of the president of the united states, but doing it on the occasion of -- that mark's martin luther king's birthday, holiday in the united states. what a day for hundreds of thousands of youth from around this country to see their capitol in action, today visiting congress it sefment wade today we also celebrate the historical enactment of the roe v. wade. what an absolute honor and privilege it is to live in a country that does not deny access to health care. i was a peace corps volunteer in latin america, and my sister died on the operating table because there was not adequate health care. when you don't have it, you can't get it no matter what. so this country pro text women's right to see a doctor in her own privacy and discuss what their

needs may be. no congress should stand in the way of denying people access to health care. including the right to an abortion. let's protect what the supreme court has honored and celebrate on this historical day all kinds of great things in this great contry, including roe v. wade, american's anniversary of the right to health care for women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> for almost four years the democrat controlled senate has failed to pass a budget. the most basic responsibility of governing. the shameful record must end this year. we must set up a broader debate about sending that forces the senate to finally join the house in confronting the government

spending problem. the house and senate must each pass a budget if they fail, the member pay should be withheld. the principle is simple as a bill. no budget, no pay. i'm a california legislators serving in our state legislature for eight years. the people got tired of late, ineffective budgets and passed legislation on their own via the initiative process to force the state legislature to get the job done. alas, the first time that happened right after the -- that election, the budget got done on time. amazing. mr. lamalfa: therefore, i hope the american people join the effort of u.s. house of representatives republicans are taking up and force the state senate, united states senate, to get this job done and get a budget done as is their responsibility. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

pursuant to clause of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20678 record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and consider h.r. 30 . the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 307, a bill to consider certain bills with respect to public health

security and all hazards, preparedness and response and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts mc-- -- mr. pitts: i -- mr. pitts: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: i can unanimous consent to -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: the preparedness re-authorization act of 013, introduce bird my colleague, mike rogers of michigan, would re-authorize programs designed to foster the development of chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear medical countermeasures and

strengthen the nation's preparedness infrastructure. it re-authorizes programs for five years at the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level and does not create a new prom -- program or create authorizations for an existing program. congress originally enacted the program to re-authorize through the project bioshield act of 2004 and pandemic hazard preparedness act of 2006. project bioshold authorized funds to purchase countermeasures through the special reserve fund and enabled the secretary of human services to authorize the emergency use of medical products. it created the biodefense advanced research and development authority within h.r. -- h.h.s. to help with the development of medical

countermeasures and ensure communications between h.h.s. and the developers of the medical countermeasures. the thrs -- re-authorizing these programs would help the nation respond to a cbrn attack and is essential to addressing gaps in the nation's flu preparedness. h.r. 307 is essentially the same as h.r. 6672, the pandemic and all hazard protection act of 2012 which passed the house in december by a vote of 283-16. i would urge all members to support this critical piece of legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to consume. mr. pallone: i'm pleased to

rise in support of h.r. 307, the pandemic preparedness act of 2013. last month before the end of congress we were unable to get this final bill over the finish line. i'm grateful to chairman upton and ranking member waxman for agreeing to act quickly and get this sent over to the senate without delay. it is virtually identical to the bill passed last december. it reflects work that took place late last year to resolve differences between the house and senate passed authorization bills. we know that our nation continues to face threats that require an ongoing commitment to public health and emergency preparedness. i think to my own district an state of new jersey, after we experienced a devastating storm that destroyed entire communities, the federal government support including through programs authorized by this program was critical in the wake of hurricane disaster. the legislation before us today

authorizes programs and activities first established as part of the public health security and bioterrorism response act of 2002, the 2004 project bioshield act and the 2006 pandemic and all-hazards preparedness act. over the past decade, these programs have represented comprehensive efforts to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. as a result of the investments that followed, our nation is better equipped to respond to a public health emergency. i want to take a few moments to highlight ways this will continue the progress we've made over the past decade. it further facilitates countermeasures through emphasizes countermeasures advancement in the national security strategy, requiring the development of budget analysis and calling for the development of a countermeasure strategy and implementation plan. it pollsters the nation's

public health preparedness infrastructure including thru a new authority to allow states to deploy personnel funded through federal programs to areas within their state where they're most needed in theafter math of a disaster. third and strengths -- third it strengthens and clarifies the position of the emergency preparedness and response as the lead for h.h.s. on emergency preparedness and response an calls for streamlining and better coordinating h.h.s. preparedness grant with those of other departments. finally it place is greater emphasis on the special needs of pediatric and other at-risk populations in preparing for and responding to public health energies. mr. speaker, h.r. 307 improved f.d.a.'s emergency response capabilities. it will enable f.d.a. to authorize the distribution and use of medical countermeasures in preparation for an emergency and take actions during an emergency that will allow for the most effective use of medical countermeasures. i just wanted to thank congressman, first i want to

thank my colleague who is about to speak, congresswoman eshoo, for her work on this legislation over the years, also, obviously, mike rogers congressman gene green, these are different people who authored the legislation over the years. i would also like to recognize the contributions of chairman upton, chairman pitts, ranking member waxman and congressman markey. in strengthening the legislation as it moved through the committee process and in discussions with the senate. they've all worked in a bipartisan fashion over the past year and a half to accomplish the goals of our members and they should be commended for the work. i urge members to join me in supporting passage of h.r. 307. i'm hopeful that our senate colleagues will move forward on this bill's passage so we can get it to the president's desk as quickly as possible. i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. mike rogers,

a prime sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank ana -- anna eshoo in being a big part of getting this passed. it's been about 10 years since september 11 and the anthrax attacked that followed. the threat of bioterrorism remains a real threat indeed to the american people. as we have seen in events across northern africa, our adversaries in al qaeda and others are still he will bent on their terrorism -- hell bent on their terrorism acts. we know they are interested in chemical and radiological and biological elements to further their political gain. fortunately, we've spent the last debling cade preparing for the chemical, biological, and radiological events by preparing and stockpiling numerous countermeasures to

protect americans the event of an attack. we now have numerous vaccines and treatments in the national stockpile to save somehow -- thousands of lives if we're atabbed. however the work to protect americans is not finish and ewith must pass this bill or the future of america's public health preparedness infrastructure will be in jeopardy. the pandemic and all hazard preparedness act is a fiscally responsible bill that represents common ground between the bipartisan house and senate-passed preparedness bills in the 112th congress. i would like to thank this opportunity to thank the bipartisan co-sponsors, first with anna eshoo with her commitment to this, chairman upton, ranking member waxman and all our great partners in the senate for their support in what has been a productive process to ensure the health preparedness of our states and hospitals for the next flu

outbreak or pan democrat ex. this bill will re-authorize critically important biodefense to support the continued development of medical countermeasures against chemical, biological and radiological nuclear threats and would strengthen the nation's public health preparedness infrastructure. re-authorizing these programs is essential to how the nation would respond to these attacks. the bill would also re-authorize programs for five years at the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level. the bill would not create a new program nor increase authorization for appropriations for an existing program. this bill would re-authorize and improve certain provisions of project bioshield and something we call ppa. wish this bill god speed for the safety of our first responders and those who may be ex-tose -- exposed to what we know is a real threat when it comes to the safety and health and national security of the

united states and with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield now to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, such time as she may consume. she is a longtime advocate and sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for such time as she wishes to consume. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the reck p ranking member, mr. pallone, for his leadership and legislative courtesies along the way and i'm very proud that as we begin am new year in a new congress, that this bill is on the floor. i think it's fitting that we begin a new congress with this bill, the pandemic hazards preparedness re-authorization, very important legislation as you've already heard from those that have spoken. i first introduced this legislation with congressman mike rogers, my friend, my

colleague, at the committee, and we've done other bills together very successfully as well. we began that particular effort in 2006, to better help our country prepare for chemical, buy y logical, radiological or nuclear attack. all words that none of us really wish to utter but we need to be prepared. developing and stockpiling appropriate countermeasures is essential for public safety. and these programs encourage american companies to invest in areas of critical need because we need the partnership of the private sector as well. the bill before us today includes new provisions that highlight the important needs of our nation's children. children are not just little adults. they need special care and medical attention.

they're especially vulnerable to biological or chemical agents because of their size and their limited capacity to flush toxins out of their bodies and their underdeveloped motor skills and total reliance on their parents or other care givers and certainly the role of the congress in this to make sure that we have laws that really speak specifically to them. while the hope is that we will never need to use these countermeasures to combat an attack on our country, i'm proud that we strengthened these programs for everyone in our country especially children. this legislation is supported by the american public health association, the association of states and territorial health officials, the national association of county and city health officials and the trust for america's health as well as very importantly the american academy of pediatrics. i'm very pleased that we're

once again voting to pass the pandemic all hazards preparedness act just as we did a month before the end of the last congress. i strongly urge my colleagues in the senate to do the same. this is a bipartisan effort and it's critical to our national preparedness and security strategy. we very often come to the floor about strategies relative to our military. strategies relative to our national intelligence community. this is about the public health element of that national security for our country. we need to move forward with this and bring the legislation to the president's desk for his signature. i thank chairman upton, the ranking member of the full energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman, and certainly the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee and again

to my wonderful partner, congressman mike rogers, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i would ask unanimous consent to a joint letter from four public health organizations that that be submitted in the record from the american public health association, association of state and territorial health officials, the national association of county and city health officials and trust for america's health. mr. poe: without objection. -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for -- mr. pallone: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. mr. green: i rise in support of

the national pandemic preparedness act. this legislation would passed by congress to help the u.s. develop medical countermeasures against chemical, buy y logical and nuclear materials and agent it is provide a mechanism for federal acquisition in the newly developed countermeasures. our nation remains vulnerable to these threats because many of the vaccines and medicines needed to protect our citizens do not exist. develop -- developing or stockpiling these medical countermeasures require time, resources and research. all of which will be provided under the legislation before us today. i'm pleased that the language i supported was supported including emphasis on reegalized tra uh -- trauma care centers. it is important to me because the university of texas medical branch, galveston national lab, is near my district, the only

lab located -- the only such lab located on a university campus. they develop vaccines and diagnostic tests for naturally occurring emerging diseases such as sars and influenza that may be employed by terrorists. as an original co-sponsor of this bill with mr. rogers, i'm pleased at having quickly -- at how quickly we've moved on this rare bipartisan piece of legislation. i would like to thank chairman rogers, chairman upton, chairman pitts, ranking member waxman, ranking member pallone, ms. meyer and ms. eshoo for their work on thment i hope the senate acts quickly and will send it to the president. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i have no additional colleagues to speak. i would simply urge members to join me in supporting passage of h.r. 307 and hope that our senate colleagues will move forward on the bill's passage so we can get@the bill to the president's desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i have no other speakers. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, it has strong bipartisan support, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: both sides having yielded back their time the question is, will the house suspend the rules and ps the bill h.r. 307? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of they have chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- the gentleman from 3e68. mr. pitts: i ask for -- the gentleman from pivel. mr. pitts: i ask for the yeas

and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this matter will be postponed.

>> in the interest of time we'll have to do this in an hour for nor event in this room. it's great to be here. my name is rob louie, director of digital media at the hair tanl foundation. we do this monthly. conversations with conservatives, heritage has been a partner of this. today we are also doing it in conjunction with our weekly bloggers tradition. we are live streaming the event on the heritage foundation live stream page. if those of you who are watching online can tweet us at cwc 113, conversations with conservatives for the 113th congress.

we are four members so far. we'll have a few others join us momentarily. congressman david schweikert from arizona, congressman tim huelskamp from kansas, congressman duncan from south carolina, and congressman massey from kentucky. i thought i would open it up to your questions in just a moment. if the congressmen would care to weigh in on some of the things coming up on the floor this week, particularly the no budget, no way plan that was outlined at the close of last week coming out of your retreat. if you want to kick it off and share your thoughts on how that's going to play out. >> i'll just start it off by saying it's been 1,364 days today since the united states senate has done an integral part of their job, and that is to pass a budget for our nation. i came from the small business community. i ran a business for 16 years and i had to do a budget every year. now, when i was working alone it was just jeff and i didn't have any employees, budgeting was a

lot easier. but i still had to figure out where i was last year on my expenditures. where i anticipated to be in the coming year on my income, and try to make it balance. to come to washington and see a dysfunctional senate, to see a harry reid-led senate that won't even do the most basic thing of governing and that is plan for the future, and for it to be 1,364 days, i keep a running tally. every day on my appointment card that my staff gives me we have at the top, how many days it's been since the senate's passed a budget. last year state of the union was the 1,000th day, the 1,000th day since the senate passed a budget. i wore a button around that had 1,000 days on it. big red button, glaring. i'm glad to see we are starting to shine that light on the fact that the senate has not done its job for the last two years we

have seen time after time after time where the house, led by the republicans, have done the responsible thing for america. where we have passed good energy legislation. we have passed good budgeting legislation. we set priorities for the nation. but yet they failed to go anywhere in the senate. so with that i yield to mr. huelskamp. >> thank you, congressman duncan, i certainly agree with all your comments. we might come to a little different vote tomorrow, though, on where we head. frankly we've got to have a budget. raising the debt ceiling for a budget to be named later is to me something i probably won't be able to vote for. but we are trying to follow that -- understand that we have a sequester, but the resequencing issue is interesting. only washington could that be a word where we are trying to resequence what's going on here. one thing that i still remain

concerned about after two years up here, i still think washington's broke. it's disfungal -- dysfunctional on the senate side. it's dysfunctional when the president will be late on his budget. but it's dysfunctional when just a few days ago this house thorsed -- authorized $50 billion of spending, most of which won't be spent until 2015, and i'll just say when i visit with constituents at home this is the worst they have come to expect of washington is when the dust settles at the end of the day, washington, no matter who seems to be in charge, will spend more money than they did the year before, going to borrow more money. so we'll have, hopefully, that debate in the next two or three months. but the see quester is law -- sequester, there is no need to debate it. that's the law. and i don't know how we win by somehow suggesting there is a debate over t we have an

opportunity here hopefully to force the senate to pass a budget. again the bill does not require the house and senate to agree to a budget, which is the whole purpose of the 1974 act. and so we can't hold each other accountable for that. i think that should be an integral part of that as well. >> the sequester, if you gentlemen will yield, sequester will set screagsier spending from 1047 to 974, which is a tremendous amount of cuts. something conservatives on this dais have been pushing for, to rein in government spending. we are going to have challenges ahead because the bill that the representative from kansas mentioned a minute ago was the sandy bill. i put an amendment that would cut a paltry $1 million. that was $1 million with an m not a b, $1 million from that which was a plus up. it was an earmark for legal services corporation. we weren't zeroing out l.s.c. we were just taking away that earmark. it failed on the house floor.

if that's any indication of the resolve we'll have to really truly cut spending, i guess i'm doubtful. >> one follow-up question, is there a commitment to balance the budget in 10 years? or will there be a commitment from the republican leadership to do that? >> look, one of the reasons -- this one will be really hard. sorry about that. i have actually had members who, shall we say, are those in power, those with the influence, look me in the eye and say, this house will produce a budget that balances in 10 years. and there's going to be some tough stuff in there, but it's telling the truth. it's reality. look, i know a bunch of you in here, many of you are very, very smart and good writers. time to take one step sideways and deal with the reality of what's going on around us. we were doing some math

yesterday and we think as of yesterday we have about 110 million americans on some sort of means tested welfare program. jan 1 next year we get another 25 million americans with obamacare moving into that welfare system. this isn't medicare, this isn't social security. so are you heading towards a time where over half your population is on one of these programs. and this is just what's going on. this is automatic. this is just happening around us. this is our world. unless we do something fairly dramatic, and find some path to get to where we lay out a budget that says we can save ourselves and here's how we do it, what are you willing to get a promise to do that? and for myself i may be about to make one of the hardest votes in my life because i'm trusting

that look into my eyes saying, schweikert, you are going to get your budget that balances in 10 years. and imagine the firestorm that starts to create when people start to understand the truth and reality of the numbers. if >> talking about tough votes, my daughter calls me a freshmore because i got here early, two months early. i have taken some tough votes already. this will be the toughest vote that i have had since i have gotten here. there are a lot of things to like in the strategy. leadership has assured us we are going to be on a path to a 10-year balanced budget. they are going to introduce a budget that balances in 10 years. when the previous benchmark was a budget that would balance in 2040. that's something to look forward to. the c.r., they assure us it's going to be linted -- limited to 974, that's the correctionary spending. the sequester will happen. i voted for the sequester to

happen when it was supposed to happen which was january 2. if we can get that to happen, at the end of this two month extension, that's a good thing. we'll get the senate on record. we'll make them produce a budget. those are all things to like about this. but i'm still having a lot of reservations about raising the debt limit for three months clean. it's a hard thing to do and i think the problem is if you are willing to raise it for three months unconditionally, why wouldn't you raise it for six months unconditionally? if you have raised it for three months unconditionally, three months from now what principles do you stand on that keep you from raising it again? and i'm concerned that when we send this over at the senate, to the senate and expose our reservation fries is free, they are going to come back and ask for something and it gets back to the house again it will get ping-ponged back and forth. the interesting thing will be to se